Razia Khan … Appellant
versus
The State of M.P. … Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2259 OF 2023
In this case, the appellant was convicted for three offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant from discharging his duty), Section 353 (using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty), and Section 451 (committing house trespass in order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment). The appellant was sentenced by the Sessions Court to one year of rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences. However, the High Court reduced the substantive sentence to six months for each offence.
The appellant's counsel made two submissions before the Supreme Court. First, they argued that the appellant deserved the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, due to her involvement in social work and her age (62 years at the time of the appeal). Second, they requested leniency in sentencing due to the long period of over 30 years from the date of the offence, during which the appellant was on bail, and her clean record during this time.
The Supreme Court considered the nature of the offence and the specific circumstances of the case. It noted that the appellant had entered the chamber of a public servant while he was conducting an official meeting, abused him, and pushed another officer, causing injury. The Court found the appellant guilty based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and evidence.
However, the Court also considered the factors presented by the appellant's counsel. The appellant's social work, the entry to the chamber being due to a long wait and without any intention to commit theft, and her age and clean record during the 30-year period were taken into account. The Court observed that while these factors individually might not justify leniency, when considered cumulatively, they warranted a reduction in the sentence.
As a result, the Supreme Court modified the sentences for each offence. For the offence under Section 333 of IPC, the appellant would undergo one month of simple imprisonment and pay a fine of ₹30,000/-. For the offence under Section 353, she would pay a fine of ₹20,000/-. For the offence under Section 451, she would undergo one month of simple imprisonment and pay a fine of ₹25,000/-. The sentences would run concurrently.
The appellant has one month to surrender before the Trial Court for serving the punishment. Out of the fine amount, ₹25,000/- will be paid to the injured witness as compensation, while the rest will go to the State. The appeal is partly allowed on the mentioned terms.
August 3, 2023